MR CHAN KIN-POR (in Cantonese): President, I agree that in order to maintain Hong Kong’s status as an international financial centre, it is absolutely necessary to assist high-level personnel in the industry, so that they may enter and leave Hong Kong subject to certain conditions. The question is how to bring the implementation details on par with the measures launched in other financial centres or regions. They must not be overly stringent, or else they will lose their meaning.
As can be seen from the document, the authorities received 151 applications as at 22 June, but only two of them were approved. Where does the problem lie? Have the authorities examined the reason for such a low approval rate? Is this because the authorities’ explanation of the relevant requirements are unclear, with the result that many application details are erroneous and do not fulfil the various requirements? Or, is it due to other reasons? The low success rate shows that the measure is meaningless. How will the authorities improve this system?
SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): President, let me give a reply to Mr CHAN’s supplementary question.
Why were only 2 of the 151 applications approved? To a large extent, this is due to the requirement of serology testing. As Honourable Members all know, one of the requirements proposed by the expert advisory panel is that people arriving in Hong Kong must undergo a serology test. Therefore, we have also added this requirement to the overall scheme, so as to make it more robust. Our approval of the two applications was based on the applicants’ completion of the serology test.
As for the Honourable Member’s question about those applications that were rejected, I must say that first, when the regulatory bodies or we scrutinize a case, we must be careful and diligent. As I said earlier, several frameworks are involved. Our first consideration is whether the relevant organization itself has the need. How is this determined? First, by the degree of connection between the company’s business and the destination of the employee in question. A specific, substantive proof of such connection is whether the company concerned has a local office there, and this is very clear. This is the first point.
The second question is whether the task given to the person due to leave or arrive in Hong Kong is within his scope of duty. For example, suppose he is in charge of the company’s business in the United States. But if his application states that the destination is the United Kingdom, then his application definitely will not be approved. We impose this requirement because we wish to provide the industry with some convenience. But we must also scrutinize their need and take account of the overriding need for combating and preventing the epidemic at the same time. I hope the Honourable Member can understand our consideration.
Those who support this initiative rolled out by us may think that we have not done enough, whereas those who are worried that we may face problems may query why we should take the risk. But frankly speaking, we already considered and taken account of these two aspects in devising the relevant arrangement, and we made the arrangement after balancing various respects.